Poll: Most Republicans donít believe in climate change A new Pew poll shows a dramatic change in opinion on climate change among Republicans that seems to mirror a new tone on the issue taken up by GOP politicians.

In the poll, 53 percent of Republicans said there is no evidence for climate change, when only three years ago 62 percent of GOPers said they did believe in global warming. Almost 80 percent of Democrats and a majority of independents said there is solid evidence for global warming.

Overall, 59 percent of adults thought there was good evidence that the planet is warming, and 34 percent said global warming is mostly caused by human activity. Both numbers are down steeply from 2006...

In the poll, 53 percent of Republicans said there is no evidence for climate change

Because they're ignorant. If they want to believe it's not caused by primarily by humans, I can at least see the argument. But if you don't believe the average temperature of the earth has warmed since we began measuring it, you're simply displaying your ignorance. Particularly the belief that there is NO EVIDENCE at all. Yeesh that's stupid. Maybe you think the evidence is flawed or doesn't prove anything, but to deny its existence? Really?

I think a lot of conservatives are turned off because the issue has been exceedingly politicized by the left, and because most of the proposed solutions are, whether designed to be so or not, thinly disguised attacks on capitalism that would destroy, or at best cripple, the U.S. economy (i.e., cap and trade), while giving the "emerging nations" a free pass. Sounds like global economic socialism to me. Personally, it is obvious that the globe has warmed up some, although hucksters like Gore have grossly overstated the immediate threat. The evidence for human causation is a good bit weaker than is generally realized, and the fact is that every nation on earth could adopt every policy Gore recommends, and we still don't KNOW that it would make any difference in global temperatures at all. It's a heck of a reach to ask a nation to hamstring its already sputtering economy as part of a solution that may not make any difference . . .

The earth's climate has never stopped changing. We have evidence of substantial changes over hundreds of millions of years. We've had reliable measurements and records of weather for a period of time that is insignificant in geological terms, but we're seeing a trend there that we're assuming is unusual because we really have nothing to compare it to. Our advances in meteorology naturally come at the same time as advances in everything else, including technology, which has always scared a certain portion of the population. There is no conclusive proof that our technology is the chief cause of the change we're seeing, just circumstantial evidence and a few theories that people with political and social axes to grind quickly grabbed and ran with back in the 70s and 80s.

Is it happening? Something is clearly happening. Did our technology cause it? We don't know. Would it have happened anyway? We don't know. How far will it go? If you take away the assumptions about the cause, we don't know. Can we do anything about it? We don't know.

Should we ignore it? Absolutely not. But if we're going to make a bunch of assumptions based as much in fear and politics as in science, spread our ideas to the public through popular entertainment and other means, then dig our heels in to the point of shouting down anyone who proposes alternatives (and ironically accusing them of having an agenda), we might just as well be ignoring it. The approach being taken is no less foolish.

well you could turn around and say liberal believe in climate change because they hate those same companies. There have been phony scare issues in the past like acid rain and population overgrowth or whatever. Alot of them variations on Malthus's population stuff that was largely debunked by economists and agriculture experts alike. The idea was that if populations kept growing their wouldn't be enough food to feed all of them. In reality more people tends to mean more food! in a phenomena called economies of scale.

I have no opinion on the issue I don't get science at all haha though I do know that Greenland is benfitting greatly from the higher temperatures, its uncovered tons of resources under the ice.

I think a lot of conservatives are turned off because the issue has been exceedingly politicized by the left, and because most of the proposed solutions are, whether designed to be so or not, thinly disguised attacks on capitalism that would destroy, or at best cripple, the U.S. economy (i.e., cap and trade), while giving the "emerging nations" a free pass. Sounds like global economic socialism to me. Personally, it is obvious that the globe has warmed up some, although hucksters like Gore have grossly overstated the immediate threat. The evidence for human causation is a good bit weaker than is generally realized, and the fact is that every nation on earth could adopt every policy Gore recommends, and we still don't KNOW that it would make any difference in global temperatures at all. It's a heck of a reach to ask a nation to hamstring its already sputtering economy as part of a solution that may not make any difference . . .

I agree with most of this explanation, though I would put it in less partisan terms. I think the left/right split on the issue goes back to the Kyoto treaty that the Clinton administration was pushing, which as I understand it would have been a terrible deal. It would have punished developed countries while adopting much softer standards for "developing" countries like China and India, who are huge polluters and will become bigger ones.

Attacking the science behind global warming was an unfortunate move, unfortunately. The scientific debate has no become so polluted by politics (on both sides) that it's almost impossible for a layman to get a straight answer. People tend to believe whichever set of experts are saying what they want to hear.

I'll split the difference. I think global warming is real, but not an impending apocalypse. Developing alternative energy sources and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is something we should be doing anyway.

Logged

"Clive [Barker]'s idea of a great time is to have a nightmare about a woman with three heads and no skin who flays your body with a pitchfork. To give you some idea, NIGHTBREED has over 200 pus monsters, including one guy with a crescent moonhead like the McDonald's commercial and a fat guy with snakes that pop out of his stomach and eat your face off, and these are the GOOD GUYS. These are the people we're supposed to LIKE."-Joe Bob on NIGHTBREED

And there I will absolutely agree with you!The sooner we can quit using oil, the sooner we can tell the Arabs to choke on the stuff, and the less misery will result from us pouring billions of dollars into the hands ofpeople whose stated goal is the death of Western civilization.

I think a lot of conservatives are turned off because the issue has been exceedingly politicized by the left, and because most of the proposed solutions are, whether designed to be so or not, thinly disguised attacks on capitalism that would destroy, or at best cripple, the U.S. economy (i.e., cap and trade), while giving the "emerging nations" a free pass. Sounds like global economic socialism to me. Personally, it is obvious that the globe has warmed up some, although hucksters like Gore have grossly overstated the immediate threat. The evidence for human causation is a good bit weaker than is generally realized, and the fact is that every nation on earth could adopt every policy Gore recommends, and we still don't KNOW that it would make any difference in global temperatures at all. It's a heck of a reach to ask a nation to hamstring its already sputtering economy as part of a solution that may not make any difference . . .

I agree with most of this explanation, though I would put it in less partisan terms.

Okay, you get a pass for that, and I know you know what I mean. Mr. Maneuverer.

I'll split the difference. I think global warming is real, but not an impending apocalypse. Developing alternative energy sources and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is something we should be doing anyway.

An "impending apocalypse" may perhaps be measured in centuries, or decades, not years or minutes. We live, but not to live on?

Hard to say...something is happening, but exactly what it is, (and why) may forever be lost in the partisan sauce both sides have added their own spices to. And any little thing that happens will be conveniently attributed to gobal warming (or whatever other issue they can use to polarize the masses and divide the camps.)

I think a lot of conservatives are turned off because the issue has been exceedingly politicized by the left, and because most of the proposed solutions are, whether designed to be so or not, thinly disguised attacks on capitalism that would destroy, or at best cripple, the U.S. economy.

That could very well be. We all have heard the saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

As to to other disaster scenarios, isn't the sun supposed to burn out sometime in the distant future? I grew up hearing this one a lot. If that's the case, there won't be any warming of any kind, and we'd all be totally screwed.

something is happening, but exactly what it is, (and why) may forever be lost in the partisan sauce both sides have added their own spices to. And any little thing that happens will be conveniently attributed to gobal warming (or whatever other issue they can use to polarize the masses and divide the camps.)

I think a lot of conservatives are turned off because the issue has been exceedingly politicized by the left, and because most of the proposed solutions are, whether designed to be so or not, thinly disguised attacks on capitalism that would destroy, or at best cripple, the U.S. economy.

That could very well be. We all have heard the saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. As to to other disaster scenarios, isn't the sun supposed to burn out sometime in the distant future? I grew up hearing this one a lot. If that's the case, there won't be any warming of any kind, and we'd all be totally screwed.

The sun burning out thing is old 'cause it won't happen anytime soon... we're not even halfway to the next 5 billion years that the sun will be expending its energy. After that, probably a long time apparent, we will have vacated or been screwed.

It's a little dated now, but Michael Crichton's book, STATE OF FEAR, was a fascinating look at the politicization of the global warming scare . . . the only novel I ever read with a 40 page bibliography of articles from scientific journals at the end!

I think this must be an American thing. In the UK if you said there was no such thing as climate change you'd be luaghed out of parliament

In the UK prety much everyone believes in Global Warming*. You'd be a fool not too.

The Maldives are dissapearing so much that the government held an underwater conference to highight the fact. And I don't know about you guys, but it obnly snowed once in my childhood and now there seems to be a blizzard every year. Weather is unpridictable and there are always freak cases, but there so many freak cases now that its just become the norm.

I can fully understand disputing whats causeing it and how to fix it, but not that its happening.

Crichton was cherry picking data to help tell his story which is perfectly fine thing to do as he writes fiction. The same with Jurassic Park or Time line...

*Well, maybe Sun readers don't. But as long as there's boobs, they're happy.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 02:34:38 PM by Doggett »

Logged

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.

Im' sure most of the wealthy arab states are cognitive of the move away from fossil fuels. The saudis for one are gearing towad a future in something they have just as much if not more of: solar energy.

In the UK prety much everyone believes in Global Warming*. You'd be a fool not too.

I wouldn't worry too much about the fool part..your parliament already made fools out of your countrymen when they released the Lockerbie bomber out of sympathy, saying he only had months to live. And guess what? More than 3 months have passed by and he's still alive; what's up with that? I hope the new oil fields in Libya were worth it...

And I don't know about you guys, but it only snowed once in my childhood and now there seems to be a blizzard every year. Weather is unpridictable and there are always freak cases, but there so many freak cases now that its just become the norm.

Try living in the Northeastern U.S. all your life. Blizzards are the norm no matter what goes on. We've had them for decades. Last year was a storm where over 3 feet was dumped on us in one shot. And then a week later we got another 1 foot. And then there's on-street parking and the fight with your neighbors over parking spaces. Now that's fun..